Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 81-05; SHERMAN, JOSEPH; Environmental Impact Report (EIR)a 6 5 k - L. PROJECT COST/BENEFIT / 1. Existing Conditions The project site encompasses approximately 96 acres of undeveloped land. Currently, it requires little or no expenditure of City funds for services and, at the same time, the City realizes little revenue from the property. Existing services are generally limited to the fire protection, which may need to be provided if a brush fire occurs on the property. Revenue is derived principally from the property taxes on the site, which is a minimal benefit to the City. 2. Project Impacts Adoption of the General Plan amendment, by itself, will incur costs for the City for the time involved in processing the amendment and EIR, which will be offset by fees charged to the applicant. As development occurs in conformance with the amendment, significant fiscal costs will be experienced and revenue derived by the City. The following details the anticipated costs and revenue of the proposed project and each alternative.1 a. Overview Table X depicts the balance of fiscal costs and revenue which would be experienced on buildout of the proposed project and each of its alternatives. The essential issue is the positive or negative balance of annual City revenues from each alternative as compared to City operating costs. The calculations are demonstrated for each alter- native on succeeding pages. It appears that the two alternatives most likely to approach relative balance are: o The proposed project o The existing General Plan. The relative revenue strength of the proposed project is due to the larger amount of retail floor space. Conversely, its cost impacts are low because of the lesser number of residential units which are These are summarized in the "Alternatives" section of the EIR. 1 . Table (X) Revenues and Costs Comparison of Six Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 1) Existing General Plan 384 111.1 (960 people) $51,840,000 property value 2) Proposed Project 284 DU (568 people) 163,350 sq.ft. retail 434,500 sq.ftl office $54,032,500 property value 3) "Alternative Two" 426 DU (852 people) 353,925 sq.ft. office • 70,785 sq.ft. retail $57,445,500 property value 4) "Alternative Two B" 714 DU (1428 people) 249,380 sq.ft. office 70,785 sq.ft. retail $76,698,250 property value 5) "Staff Alternatives" 960 DU (1920 people) $81,600,000 property value 6) "Consultant Alternative" 558 DU (1116 people) 119, 790 sq.ft. office $53,419,500 property value ONE TIME ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL FEES AND REVENUE COST DIFFERENCE CHARGES ESTIMATE ESTIMATE $1,588,992 $ 311,942+ $ 351,360+ (-$ 39,418) $1,778,494 $ 430,524+ $ 419,436+ +$ 11,088 $1,978,942 $ 407,603+ $ 471,408+ (-$ 63,805) $2,720,060 $ 560,220+ $ 639,768+ (-$ 79,548) $2,968,480 $ 585,000+ $ 702,720+ (-$ 117,720) $1,937,344 $ 357,610+ $ 457,500+ (-$ 99,890) . 2 . proposed. All other alternatives have higher residential unit counts with attendant higher City operating costs. For purposes of this fiscal impact analysis, the costs of capital infra- structure are, in general, assumed to be paid for by the developer, and by the developer's payment of permit fees and charges. It should be recognized that this fiscal impact analysis is generated from selected data currently available. In general, the costs and revenues analyses are approximate- -selected from those costs of revenues accounts which are most obvious from the available data b. Revenues and Costs Analyses--by Alternative (1) Existing General Plan 384 DU (single family detached), 25 persons /household o One time fees and charges: - Sewer hook up = $ 384,000 - P.I.L. (Quimby) = $ 168,192 - P.F.F. = $1,036,800 - Other fees and charges = "wash" $1,588,992 o Periodic revenues (selected: - Property transfer tax Value = $51,840,000 x 10%/year x $.55/$1000 = $ 2,851/yr - Property tax Value x $51.84M x .012 x .24 - = $ 149,299 - Sales tax (384 x 2.5 x $100) = $ 96,000 - Mator vehicle in lien 384 x 2.5 x $10.50 = $ 10,800 - Cigarette tax .384 x $1.95 x 2.5 = $ 1,872 - Trash and sewer service charges at $135/yr/flU = $ 51,840 $ 311,942/yr o Expected costs (periodic) f- Annual City costs/capita = $479 x 384 x 2.5 = $ 459,840] - Adjust City costs/capita to net out fees and charges, and outside revenue sources $366/capita x 384 x 2.5 = $ 351,360 - FDU apporoach to office and retail = $ 0 $ 351,360/yr 2Assumptions on which these calculations were based are included in Appendix A. 91 (2) Proposed Project S 284 DU (multi-family attached units); 163,350 sq.ft. retail; 434,500 sq.ft. office o One time fees and charges - Sewer hook up = $284,000 + 48,044 + $241,388 = $ 573,432 - P.I.L. (Quimby) = $124,392 = $ 124,392 - P.F.F. = $482,800 + 163,350 + 434,500 = $1,080,650 $1,778,474 o Periodic revenues (selected - Property transfer tax = $ 2,972/yr - Property tax = $ 155,614 - Sales tax* = $56,800 + 80% of $100/sq.ft. x 163,350 sq.ft. x 1% = $ 187,480 - Motor vehicle in lien = 284 x 2.0 = $ 5,964 - Cigarette tax = $ 1,108 - Trash and sewer service charges = $38,340 + 6,486 + 32,588 = $ 77,414 $ 430,524/yr * No point-of-sale sales tax is assumed for the office space o Effected periodic costs: - Annual City costs/capita = $479 x 284 x 2.0 = $ 272,072 - Adjust City costs to net out fees and charges, and outside revenue sources = $366/capita x 284 x 2.0 = $ 211,548 $ 419,436/yr (3) "Alternative Two" 426 DU (multi-family attached); 353,925 sq.ft. office; 70,785 sq.ft. retail o One time fees of charges: - Sewer hook up = 426,000 + 196,625 + 20,819 = $ 643,444 - P.I.L. (Quimby) = 186,588 186,588 - P.F.F. = 724,000 + 353,925 + 70,785 = $1,148,910 - Other fees and charges = "wash" $1,978,942 o Periodic revenues (selected): - Property transfer tax $57,445,500 x $.55/$1000 x 10%/yr = $ 3,160/yr - Property tax = $57,445,000 x .012 x .24 = $ 165,443 - Sales tax = $85,200 + $56,628 = $ 141,828 - Motor vehicle in lien = $8946 = $ 8,946 - Cigarette tax = $ 1,661 - Trash and sewer charges = $57,510 + 26,544 + $2811 = $ 86,865 $ 407,603/yr S o Periodic City costs: [- Annual City costs/capita = $479 x 426 x 2 - Adjust City costs/capita to set out fees and charges and outside revenue sources = $366 x 426 x 2 = $ 408,108] = $ 159,576 $ 471,408/yr (4) Alternative "Two B" 288 DU (high density); 426 DU (medium densty); 249,380 sq.ft. office; 70,785 sq.ft. retail o One time fees and charges - Sewer hook up = $714,000 + 138,544 + 20,819 = $ 873,363 - P.I.L. (Quimby) = $312,732 = $ 312,732 - P.F.F. = 1,213,800 + 219,380 + 70,785 = $1,533,965 - Other fees and charges = "wash" $2,720,060 o Periodic revenues (selected) - Property transter tax = $76,698,250 = $ 4,218/yr - Property tax = $76,698,250 x .012 x .24 = $ 220,891 - Sales tax = $142,800 + 56,628 = $ 199,428 - Motor vehicle in lien = $14994 = $ 14,994 - Cigarette tax = $2,785 = $ 2,785 - Trash and sewer charges = $96,390 + 18;703 +_2811 = $ 117,904 $ 560,220/yr o Projected periodic costs (to City) - Adjust City costs ($479/capita) to set out fees and charges, and outside revenue sources $366/capita x 714 x 2 $ 422,648/yr - EDU approach to office and retail $366 x 139 x 21 x 2 = $ 117,120 $ 639,768/yr (5) Staff Alternative 960 DU (multi-family attached) o One time fees and charges - Sewer hook up - P.I.L. (Quimby) - P.F.F. - Other fees and charges = $ 916,000 overstated = $ 420,480 = $1,632,000 = . o Periodic revenues (selected): - Property transfer tax = $81,600,200 x 10% x $.55/$1000 - Property tax = $81,600,000 x .012 x .24 - Sales tax = $192,000 - Motor vehicle in lien = 960 x 2 x 10.50 - Cigarette tax = 960 x 2 x 1.95 - Trash and sewer charges = 960 x 135 = $ 4,488/yr = $ 235,008 = $ 192,000 = $ 20,160 = $ 3,744 = $ 129,600 $ 585,000/yr o Expected periodic costs (to City) - Adjust City costs ($479/capita) to net out fees and charges, and outside revenue sources = $366 x 960 x 2 = $ 702,720/yr (6) Consultants Alternative: 558 DU (multi-family attached housing); 119,790 sq.ft. office o One time fees and charges: - Sewer hook up = $558,000 + 66,550 = $ 624,550 - P.I.L. (Quimby) = $244,404 = $ 244,404 - P.F.F. = 948,600 + 119,790 = $1,068,390 - Other fees and charges = "wash" $1,937,344 o Periodic revenues (selected): - Property transfer tax = - $53,419,500 x .1 x .55/$1000/M.V. = $ 2,938/yr - Property tax = 53,419,500 x .012 x .24 = $ 153,548 - Sales tax = $111,600 = $ 111,600 - Motor vehicle in lien = 558 x 2 x $10.50 = $ 11,718 - Cigarette tax = 558 x 2 x $1.95 = $ 2,176 - Trash and sewer charges = 588 x 135 = $ 75,330 $ 357,610/yr o Expected periodic costs to City: - Adjust City costs ($479/capita) to net out fees and charges, and outside revenue sources = $366 x 558 x 2 = $ 408,456/yr - EDU approach to office = $366 x 67 x 2 = $ 49,044 $ 457,500/yr 3. Mitigation Measures As no significant negative fiscal costs over revenue have been identified for the proposed project, no mitigation measures are necessary. 0 4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • No unavoidable adverse impacts regarding project costs and revenues have been identified as a result of this analysis. . [IJ 7 (add to Alternatives) (A. No Project) o Archaeology: Impact on cultural resources could be similar to that of the proposed project. The "no project" alternative will result in a continuing estimated cost (1. e., negative benefit) to the City of $39,418 per year. (B. Alternative 2) o Archaeology: Impact on cultural resources could be similar to that of the proposed project. o Cost/Benefit: Cost to City of an estimated $63,805 per year. (C. Alternative 2B) o Archaeology: Impact on cultural resources could be similar to that of the proposed project. o Cost/Benefit: Cost to City of an estimated $79,548 per year. • (D. City Staff) o Archaeology: Impact on cultural resources could be similar to that of the proposed project. o Cost/Benefit: Cost to City of an estimated $117,720 per year. (E. Consultant) o Archaeology: Impact on cultural resources could be similar to that of the proposed project. o Cost/Benefit: Cost to City of an estimated $99,890 per year. . 1 APPENDIX A COST/BENEFIT ASSUMPTIONS . 0 FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY ASSUMPTIONS S 1) All figures are expressed in 1981 constant value dollars. 2) All figures are derived from available secondary source data from the City or the State of California, for conditions which exist at this time. 3) All figures have been calculated for project performance at full buildout. 4) Costs data are drawn from the current City of Carlsbad 1981-82 Budget on either a per capita or per dwelling unit basis, or from factors shown in the Interim Growth Management Program (draft) study. 5) The level of detail in this fiscal impact analysis is commensurate with the scale and scope of work requested of Envicom Corporation by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 6), The vacant land (existing state) alternative is considered to have zero costs and revenues (property taxes collected are assumed to wash out City costs; all new development is essentially causing new costs and generating new revenues). 7) Only selected revenue and cost accounts have been used to generate the comparative analyses of the six basic alternatives. 8) School District and other governmental jurisdictional costs have not been calculated. Please note that Carlsbad has historically had an excellent school fee/dwelling unit collection system, and that the State-wide implementation of the Serrano decision has resulted in partial equalization of per pupil operating costs and revenues (con- tributed by the State). 9) In assessing City costs attributable to the office and retail space, we have used the "EDU" (equivalent dwelling unit) concept: office space is measured at 1800 sq.ft. = 1 DU; retail space is measured at 3400 sq.ft. = 1 DU. Then an EDU population of 2 persons/EDU was used to measure equivalent costs. 0 BASIC REVENUES OUTLINE A) ONE TIME FEES 1) Public Facilities Fee = 2% of building permit value. 2) Quimby Bill ("P.I.L") = fee calculated from ordinance formula. 3) Sewer hook up = $1000/equivalent dwelling unit. 4) Building permit and plan check fees = fee structure in the Uniform Building Code (this is assumed to be a "wash" against costs). 5) School fee, depends on the number of bedrooms, assessed at $300/bedroom (this is assumed also to "wash" because of State legislation which equilizes school district revenues at dollars per student day). 6) Street lighting, signs, etc., assessment (to developer) = also a "wash" against costs. B) ON GOING AND PERIODIC REVENUES 1) Sewer service charge @$5.25/DU/mo. . 2) Trash pick up fee @$6.00/mo/DU. 3) Motor vehicle in lieu fees @$20.72 per capita less $323,727 with- drawn from Carlsbad by California in 1981-82, as State subven- tions are reduced for all California communities. 4) Cigarette tax distribution @$1 .95/capita/yr. 5) Property tax receipts at 24% of the 1% of new market value generated by the project. - 6) Property transfer tax @$.55/$1000 of property values transactions. 3 . . BASE ASSUMPTIONS A) DEVELOPMENT VALUES / o Single-family detached DU @1800 sq. ft. are valued @$135,000. o Multi-family attached DU @800 sq. ft. are valued @$85,000. o Commercial development is valued @$50.00/sq.ft. (both office and retail). o A 10% turnover rate for properties is projected per year. B) REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS o Property tax rate is .012 of market value x .24 for City portion. o Sewer hook up fee is $1000 per equivalent DU. o Public Facilities Fee is 2% of development value. o Quimby Ordinance park-in-lieu fees averages $438.00 per DU. o Motor vehicle in lieu fees are $20.72/capita (after Carlsbad takes a $323,727 reduction imposed by the State--the real fees per capita fall to $10. 50 +/capita- -which is used in this analysis). o Cigarette tax subvention is $1 .95/capita. o Sales tax/capita is estimated at $100/yr. o Sewer service charges/mo/DU are $5.25 or $63/yr. o Trash pick up charges/mo/DU are $6.00 or $72/yr. o Property transfer tax receipts in Carlsbad are $ .55/1000 of market value at time of transaction. . C) CITY OPERATING COSTS ASSUMPTION o Total per capita costs (per 1981-82 City Budget), not including C.I.P. budget = $478.87/yr (@35,500 peor'1 -'\ Of the total, functional/capita costs ar - Parks and Recreation @$3 ,841/capita, - Police @$71.32/capita/yr. - Fire and Paramedic @$52 . 94/capita/yi - Library @$26.55/capita/yr. - General government @$39 . 98/capita/y 2 - Development services (planning, engineering, building) @$46.40/capita/yr. (Please note that most of this is recovered from fees.) - Maintenance and Sanitation @$41.80/capita/yr. When the entire annual budget of $17,000,000 is adjusted to delete fees and charges, and non-State subvention outside revenue sources, as well as certain earned funds, a "base" budget of $13M is used to calculate roughly $366/capita/yr as City annual operating costs. D) CONVERSION ASSUMPTIONS o Forpurposes of sewer hook up fees, per City policy: - Retail commercial space is measured @3400sq . ft. /EDU. - Office space is measured @1800sq.ft./EDU. o Single-family dwellings will generate 2.5 persons per household. Multi-family dwellings will generate 2.0 persons per household. o Please note that exact Quimby Ordinance (P. I . L.) formulas have not been used, and thus the income may be overstated. o No "point-of-sale" sales tax is assumed for the office space; sales tax (in addition to that generated by the dwelling units/persons) from the retail is assumed to be 80% of $100/sq. ft. x 1% of the retail floor space. In other words, the residential will only account for 20% of the new retail sales, while 50% will come from within Carlsbad, and 30% will come from outside Carlsbad due to project location. - 5 - - --- / L fi: Ji I ' ! - : -4 - JOSEPH SHERMAN. 1383 / 7423 OARVEY 280-0358 q 1 1/s' 1 L ROSEAD CALY 177Y 222 flA -7777 77 aDf L rtitX 91801 I / / i; / w"ll POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL (S)